30 Jul
2016
30 Jul
'16
3:06 p.m.
It’s more than a play on words and not just English. In Chinese tennis (net ball) and
Internet both use 网. This is why I have http:// <http://网.ws> 网.ws. (and, to be safe
http:// <http://網.ws> 網.ws).
This is better discussed at a workshop but I’ll make on effort to disentangle the
concepts.
It is this ambiguity that is at the heart of challenge in coming to terms with the
Internet as a discontinuity from telecommunications. The reason we implicitly assume
networking is a service is that in the days of telegraphy and telephony we relied on a
provider to keep the message intact. The discontinuity came from our ability to use
software to program-around providers. In that sense the Internet represents a return to
the being social network than a traditional telecommunications network. TCP is a
cooperative protocol implemented at the edges and it’s a technique that allows us to
program around whatever is in the path. The actual story is more entangled because
telecommunications used the wires merely to sell services so we still accept the idea that
the Internet is a service we buy even if that’s very far from the truth. Today’s protocols
build on that story.
Too many of the well-intentioned efforts focus on the physical network and extending the
business model of telecommunications. Concepts like “access” are more about particular
ways of using the infrastructure that mirror traditional telecommunications services.
Guifi is a nice story but I’d be far more excited about communities that can use their
standard governmental mechanisms to coordinate their efforts to support connectivity like
they do roads and sidewalks. This is why I framed my talk at Luca’s FGV in terms of
infrastructure (http://rmf.vc/InfrastructureRio) rather than networks.
We have to be careful to see these efforts in the larger context of infrastructure as a
basic function of (local) governments and as something paid for making it free to use and
extend. (I also need to finish http://rmf.vc/InfrastructureConnected about why
“free-to-use” is so important and post it).
Efforts like Altermundi and Guifi have their place but we need to view them in the larger
context of infrastructure.
From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] On
Behalf Of Jane Coffin
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 01:11
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Cc: ermanno(a)gmail.com; 'Steve Song' <stevesong(a)nsrc.org>rg>; 'Marco
Zennaro' <mzennaro(a)ictp.it>
Subject: Re: [DC3] IGF workshop proposal accepted!!!!
Hi Bob –
Actually – networking in the sense of connectivity. Many of us are keen not to simply say
“Community wireless” networks as there are some excellent examples of “community networks”
like some of the Guif.net networks that are not Wi-Fi only.
But, you raise an excellent point in English re networking. A nice play on words.
An event to bring a community of people together who help network communities.
Jane
Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org <http://www.internetsociety.org>
Skype: janercoffin
Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429
From: <dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net> > on behalf of Bob Frankston
<Bob19-0501(a)bobf.frankston.com <mailto:Bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com> >
Reply-To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> >
Date: Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 6:33 AM
To: 'Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity' <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> >
Cc: "ermanno(a)gmail.com <mailto:ermanno@gmail.com> " <ermanno(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ermanno@gmail.com> >, Steve Song <stevesong(a)nsrc.org
<mailto:stevesong@nsrc.org> >, Marco Zennaro <mzennaro(a)ictp.it
<mailto:mzennaro@ictp.it> >
Subject: Re: [DC3] IGF workshop proposal accepted!!!!
What is the sense of “Networking” in the phrase “community networking”? I presume it is in
the social sense rather than the engineering sense.
I agree we need more time than a short session because there is a lot of learning and,
perhaps, more unlearning.
If we are to achieve more of … part of the question is more of what. This is why I use
terms like “connectivity” and “infrastructure” rather than “the Internet” or even because
those terms tend to limit us to more of the same and to framing the issues in terms of
physical objects and problematic constructs like spectrum [sic].
So the first topic is understanding the question. What is an articulate version of the
yearning for more “Internet” and how we can we get more of the secret sauce. I do argue
that, at this point, the issue is primarily economic and also escaping the framing of the
web and “access”. We don’t even have open infrastructure for the first billion let alone
the rest … but that’s a longer discussion. This is why I’m focusing my current efforts on
an economic/business model for an infrastructure that isn’t “pay to speak” nor the concept
of authorization.
So, yes, a (social, educational) networking event would be great.
From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>
[mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] On Behalf Of Jane Coffin
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:37
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> >
Cc: ermanno(a)gmail.com <mailto:ermanno@gmail.com> ; Steve Song <stevesong(a)nsrc.org
<mailto:stevesong@nsrc.org> >; Marco Zennaro <mzennaro(a)ictp.it
<mailto:mzennaro@ictp.it> >
Subject: Re: [DC3] IGF workshop proposal accepted!!!!
Luca and All –
Given the amazing energy around this great workshop, and that so many people may be in one
place.
I wondered – should we take advantage of all of the great people coming to Guadalajara and
hold a day-long Community Networking event?
We could focus in greater detail on topics related to:
-Community Building/Getting Started
-Business Case/Sustainability
-Tools for setting up networks/The “How”
-Tools for training/The “How” and sustainability
-Software/Hardware Tools
-Spectrum issues
-Legal/policy (as related to spectrum or authorizations)
-Other
We could do it before, during, or after the IGF.
Or, if this complicates things – we could find another event – maybe ICTP has something in
early 2017 where we could gather, meet/discuss.
Talk to me ;)
Best,
Jane
Internet Society | <http://www.internetsociety.org> www.internetsociety.org
Skype: janercoffin
Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429
From: < <mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>
dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net> on behalf of Luca Belli <
<mailto:luca.belli@fgv.br> luca.belli(a)fgv.br>
Reply-To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <
<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:09 AM
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <
<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: [DC3] IGF workshop proposal accepted!!!!
Hi all,
this is just to say that our proposal has been accepted!!
Thanks to all those who have participated in the elaboration of the proposal.
FYI, here are the workshop-proposals evaluation results
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf16-workshops/igf2016-workshops-evaluation-results>
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf16-workshops/igf2016-workshops-evaluation…
All the best
Luca